It's interesting that you bring up D.C. Statehood. It would require a constitutional amendment to give DC representation in Congress equivalent to that of a state. That much is pretty clear. But all Congress has to do to admit a state is to pass an act of admission into the union.
But it's hard to say that it would be constitutional to make a state out of DC. The constitution forbids a state to be made from the territory of another state. D.C. was formerly part of Maryland, but Maryland ceded a section of its territory for the purposes of a federal district, which Congress administers according to its constitutional authority. Maryland didn't cede that land for the creation of another state, and I think a reasonable argument could be made that it's unconstitutional to create a state from it.
Interestingly enough, Washington DC residents used to vote for representation in Congress. The parts of DC that were once part of Maryland voted, and were represented by members of Congress who represented those parts Maryland before it was ceded to the federal government to be the capital. Same goes for Virginia. In 1801, Congress passed the "Organic Act" that stripped anyone residing in the district of their right to vote in federal elections. Of course, there were few people living in DC in 1801, so it didn't affect all that many people then.
I would oppose giving DC statehood status, either by directly admitting it, or by giving it voting rights incidental to statehood because I a) suspect it's unconstitutional, and b) don't think enough people live there to warrant giving them two senators. But I don't see why they can't be given representation administered as part of Maryland as they had before 1801. Congress could do this by repealing the Organic Act. It would then be up to Maryland to draw the Congressional district.
no subject
But it's hard to say that it would be constitutional to make a state out of DC. The constitution forbids a state to be made from the territory of another state. D.C. was formerly part of Maryland, but Maryland ceded a section of its territory for the purposes of a federal district, which Congress administers according to its constitutional authority. Maryland didn't cede that land for the creation of another state, and I think a reasonable argument could be made that it's unconstitutional to create a state from it.
Interestingly enough, Washington DC residents used to vote for representation in Congress. The parts of DC that were once part of Maryland voted, and were represented by members of Congress who represented those parts Maryland before it was ceded to the federal government to be the capital. Same goes for Virginia. In 1801, Congress passed the "Organic Act" that stripped anyone residing in the district of their right to vote in federal elections. Of course, there were few people living in DC in 1801, so it didn't affect all that many people then.
I would oppose giving DC statehood status, either by directly admitting it, or by giving it voting rights incidental to statehood because I a) suspect it's unconstitutional, and b) don't think enough people live there to warrant giving them two senators. But I don't see why they can't be given representation administered as part of Maryland as they had before 1801. Congress could do this by repealing the Organic Act. It would then be up to Maryland to draw the Congressional district.